There is a difference between a “simple commodity consumable and a complex medical technology”, Nathealth said

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration’s recent survey flagging huge mark-ups on hospital consumables may have resonated with people who have had to contend with high treatment costs and non-transparent bills.

But an industry body representing healthcare companies including hospitals – Nathealth has called for a “nuanced” discussion to come out with a framework for transparent pricing, taking into account all that goes into delivering a product for better clinical outcomes.   

There is a difference between a “simple commodity consumable and a complex medical technology”, Nathealth said, responding to the State FDA survey on hospital consumables that revealed trade margins as high as 2,800 per cent, in some cases.

While the industry body distanced itself from the “extraordinarily high margins” on “commodotised” consumables, Nathealth said, that that procurement cost of a device cannot “automatically” be equated with the cost of delivery to the patient.

Several hospitals did not comment on the State FDA findings, instead directing their response through the industry body.

Siddhartha Bhattacharya, Nathealth secretary general, told businessline, the issue was “nuanced” and a framework was needed to capture the various layers of bringing out a device that is used by patient.

“Hospitals are not resellers of equipment… There is a clinical layer on top of what they are doing,” he said, adding that hospitals may participate in the clinical evaluation and configurations, among other things, before a technology reached the patient.

Some of the layers between procurement and delivery included maintaining emergency inventory, ensuring sterile-chain integrity and traceability, providing trained clinical and biomedical teams, managing expiry and obsolescence risks, maintaining specialised infrastructure, and safe disposal, besides taking responsibility for quality, safety and outcomes, the Nathealth representative said.

That aside, he added, high margins on routine, commoditised consumables deserve scrutiny and should not be justified by costs associated with sophisticated technologies.

The industry spokesperson called for an evidence-based and differentiated framework that distinguished basic consumables from clinically differentiated and high-complexity medical technologies. “The policy objective should not simply be to focus on a fixed markup; it should …. determine what constitutes a fair and transparent patient price after recognising the legitimate cost and value involved in making the technology clinically available and integrate it as part of an overall package that is reimbursed either by patient or insurance,” he said.

Pavan Choudary, Chairman of Medical Technology Association of India (MTaI) told the correspondent that trade margin rationalization had a precedent when the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) capped trade margins on oxygen concentrators and four other pandemic-critical devices (pulse oximeters, BP monitors, nebulizers, and glucometers). “It is a well-tested tool,” he said, calling for an evidence-based approach to bring in predictability and transparency, besides correcting market distortions.

Published on September 17, 2026